There is no debate were a country in transition. The only debate is what were actually transitioning to, and whether well be better or worse as a people for it.

Such transitions challenge trusted traditions to prove theyre still relevant. Old alliances are tested. And folks tend to gravitate to new ideas quickly before theyre fully vetted, mainly because theyve lost faith in the old ideas.

In the political arena, nowhere will this attempted paradigm shift be more apparent than the foreign policy debate that could very well define the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Recently, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and Texas Governor Rick Perry gave us a preview.

In a guest op-ed for The Washington Post, Governor Perry criticized Sen. Paul by name when he said, Its disheartening to hear fellow Republicans, such as Sen. Rand Paul, suggest that our nation should ignore whats happening in Iraq.

Perry was just getting started. Also in the sharply-worded op-ed he referred to Paul as curiously blind to threats from radical Islamists in the Middle East. Perry then rebuked Pauls claims his foreign policy aligns with Reagans: His analysis is wrong. Paul conveniently omitted Reagans long internationalist record of leading the world with moral and strategic clarity.

Perry may have a point there.

As I wrote for The Washington Times earlier this year, Pauls father  former Texas Congressman Ron Paul  was often very critical of Reagans foreign policy exploits at the time. Ron Paul criticized Reagan for ignoring world court rulings against him, said Reagan was determined to pick a fight with Khadafi in Libya, urged Reagan to lift the Cuban embargo, and said the invasion of Grenada is hardly the victory the American people were led to believe. His many foreign policy disagreements with Reagan helped prompt Ron Paul to leave the Republican Party for a time, and he became the Libertarian Partys nominee for president back in 1988.

While his son, Rand, may be known for urging non-interventionism in foreign affairs, when it comes to domestic politics he chose to fire right back at Perry.

In a column for Politico with the not-so-subtle title Rick Perry is Dead Wrong, Rand says with 60,000 foreign children streaming across the Texas border, I am surprised (Perry) has apparently found timeto mischaracterize and attack my foreign policy.

But thats not all. Not by a long shot. Paul also wrote:

In fact, some of Perrys solutions for the current chaos in Iraq arent much different from what Ive proposed, something he fails to mention. His solutions also arent much different from President Barack Obamas, something he also fails to mention. Because interestingly enough, there isnt that many good choices right now in dealing with this situation in Iraq. So what are Perrys solutions and why does he think they are so bold and different from anyone elses? Hewrites in theWashington Post, the president can and must do more with our military and intelligence communities to help cripple the Islamic State. Meaningful assistance can include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sharing and airstrikes.

The United States is actually doing all of this now. President Obama has said he might use airstrikes in the future. I have also been open to the same optionif it makes sense. I support continuing our assistance to the government of Iraq, which include armaments and intelligence. I support using advanced technology to prevent ISIS from becoming a threat. I also want to stop sending U.S. aid and arms to Islamic rebels in Syria who are allied with ISIS, something Perry doesnt even address. I would argue that if anything, my ideas for this crisis are both stronger, and not rooted simply in bluster. If the governor continues to insist that these proposals mean Im somehow ignoring ISIS, Ill make it my personal policy to ignore Rick Perrys opinions.

I have a hard time imagining Pauls father supporting any of the measures that Rand has put in writing here. I saw Ron Paul in a GOP presidential debate prior to the 2011 Iowa Straw Poll say he didnt think we should intervene to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Even going so far as to say one can understand why (Iran) might want to become a nuclear capable, if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully.

Rands tough talk in Politico is one of several departures from his father on foreign policy, which shows hes not nearly as devoted to non-interventionism/libertarian orthodoxy as his father was. Rand also broke ranks from his dad when he said last year an attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the U.S. In fact, Rands father wouldve panned these words as war mongering if they came from George W. Bush or Dick Cheney.

When it comes to foreign policy, Rand has already gone out of his way to show he is not a chip off the old block. Nevertheless, his detractors/campaign rivals like Perry are going to force him to continue to make that case. Rands ability to do so, without alienating his fathers non-interventionist base that he obviously needs at the same time, could go a long way towards determining his fate in the race for the nomination.

He turned me off when he started concentrating on running for president in 2013 before the presidential election in 2016. It’s like he thinks the midterm election is not important and can be ignored. BTW the author seemed to think so too if you check out his columns

5
posted on 07/26/2014 10:12:00 AM PDT
by Kaslin
(He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)

Perry inre illegals called out the guard in texas, but I can’t help being nagged by what he said that sunk his last presidential try “I Don’t Think You Have a Heart” If You Oppose In-State Tuition for Children of Illegal Immigrants.

6
posted on 07/26/2014 10:12:37 AM PDT
by Cubs Fan
(false claims of racism--the first refuge of a liberal scoundrel)

Military adventurism was most successful for the Roman Empire. During its early phase, the people of cities to which they arrived would sometimes toss their king over the walls and open the gates. In its decline, the legions traveled with thousands of whores to satisfy the troops. It was interior political strife, immorality, and the welfare state the killed the Roman Republic, not military adventurism per se.

10
posted on 07/26/2014 11:12:15 AM PDT
by Carry_Okie
(Islam offers us three choices: Defeat them utterly, die, or surrender to a life of slavery.)

The key words are "traveled" and "troops". The foreign military expeditions bankrupted the Roman Treasury. The demise was caused by banrupting the treasury on foreign wars, by spending money they did not have. Same thing happened to USSR. They tried to compete militarily with USA on star wars. Result? Demise of USSR. It is the height of stupidity to borrow money from China to protect middle-east oil lanes from where majority of oil goes to China, Japan & SE Asia. There is absolutely nothing wrong to play world policeman if there is money in the treasury. Right now, employment is horrible with 90 million adults without jobs, corporations are moving out of US to avoid highest tax rates in industrialized world. Obamacare is a ball & chain around the feet of businesses. Illegals WITHOUT SKILLS or MONEY are flooding the country. The priority for us must be to strengthen the country internally first. Pay off the debt to foreign countries. Stop deficit spending on backs of future generation. Only then we can afford to maintain hundreds of military bases all over the world. And act as the world policeman again.

15
posted on 07/26/2014 4:09:55 PM PDT
by entropy12
(Obummer = worst & dumbest president ever, any republican would be much better.)

The demise was caused by bankrupting the treasury on foreign wars, by spending money they did not have. because they were spending their tax revenue on the welfare state.

Moreover, Rome had to fight a good many of those wars because of the confiscatory taxation necessary to keep Rome itself in clover. The wars also cost more money because they had to pay more for mercenaries than they once had for Romans to fight them. Romans had become worthless dependents unwilling to fight for the Empire. Sound familiar?

Same thing happened to USSR. They tried to compete militarily with USA on star wars. Result? Demise of USSR.

That's a common meme. It's wrong too. They already had a missile defense system before we did and before the ABM Treaty was concluded, with the SS-300 system becoming operational in 1978. Moreover (and demonstrating the lack of information in your thinking) it was their new 600 ship blue water navy that drained the coffers more than missile defense did.

17
posted on 07/27/2014 7:02:53 AM PDT
by Carry_Okie
(Islam offers us three choices: Defeat them utterly, die, or surrender to a life of slavery.)

You are not catching on to my main point. You are typical of posters who pick on tidnits and miss the main point. Heard of getting lost in the forest looking at trees?

The main point, in simple English, is that when a country or individual spends more than they can afford, bankruptcy is straight ahead. It matters not if it is spent on welfare, military adventures, or healthcare.

Every dollar US spends on any foreign military expenditures adds directly to the deficit. It is really not complicated. We are running Billions & Trillions of dollar deficits every year and the loan principal keeps going up. Which means more interest to be paid every year.

It is exactly same as an individual who is spending faster than his ability to pay loans.

Spending on Medicare & Medicaid & Social Security (currently spending more Billions than taking in taxes) is harder to stop than foreign military spending. Why do we have hundreds of military bases all over the world on borrowed money?

18
posted on 07/27/2014 10:15:21 AM PDT
by entropy12
(Obummer = worst & dumbest president ever, any republican would be much better.)

Nonsense. I am rejecting your thesis as historically indefensible. You are asserting that the same empire that somehow afforded expeditions of military conquest in foreign lands and then held them for hundreds of years, was somehow too expensive to maintain a defensive capability on its own turf. Yet it costs more to conquer a nation than to retain it after the structure of a police state is in place. Your "point" is logically indefensible.

Once the cost of disbanding its army into welfare queens was posed they had to BUY one, costing the funding to support TWO cohorts, military and welfare constituencies. Yet you blame the cost of sustaining the military alone. It's absurd. They afforded the conquest. They maintained it for hundreds of years. It was the depravity of the nation that created and amplified the demand for expended revenue, not the cost of defense which was also higher because the soldiers, many of whom were foreigners, had no loyalty to the Roman Empire. They had to be paid more to stay and would not fight with the motives of freemen.

Runt Paul for President! Woo! Woo!

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.